Page 1 of 1

[0806.4493] Statistical and systematical errors in cosmic m

Posted: June 30 2008
by Thomas Dent
Since I am not a CMB analyst I will simply call for comments on this.

I got as far as understanding Fig.1 which shows the WMAP3 sky coverage in terms of the number of observations N per pixel, the 1/sqrt(N) expected noise - and the large-scale anomalies up to l=2. The results being curiously similar.

The argument seems to be that the large-scale anomalies are suspiciously aligned with the WMAP sky coverage and there is a direct link due to 'exposure-dependent noise'.

They claim another effect of 'systematic temperature distortion' due to the differencing procedure, which produces spurious 'rings' of anomalously cold pixels around hot point sources.

Too bad they did not get to WMAP5...